Ruediger Berlich wrote:
But that is exactly where clarification is needed. My understanding of the phrase "derivative works" differs from yours, and I suspect that this will be the case for many people.
Me too: I would read as "modification of", not "use of".
I understand that it is an explicit goal of Boost developers to allow an almost entirely free (in the sense of free speech and free beer) usage of the library, INCLUDING commercial use.
Yes, that was the motivation behind the licence.
If, by simply using (or worse: deriving classes from) components of Boost the authors (who are possibly part of a company) would give away rights in their or their companies' code, very few commercial entities would ever produce software intended for public consumption, based on Boost.
It is my understanding that this is one of the most central points where the GPL and the Boost Software License differ. The GPL automatically extends to code based on GPL'ed code. It is "viral" (I do not like that phrase), no matter whether the original, GPL'ed code itself was modified or not. The Boost Software License - at least this is how I understand it - is _not_ viral.
Exactly: that at least was the intent of the licence: of course IANAL, but it was drafted by one at least. John.